Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 172 (KAR)

Chandu v. State

2020-01-21

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.18/2019 of Gogi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under section 323, 326, 504, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on 19.02.2019, at about 5.00 p.m., all these accused formed unlawful assembly with an intention to kill CW.1 Sri Khubchand @ Khubya S/o Ganunayak Rathod, assaulted him while he was coming in the agricultural land belonging to the accused and attempted to cause his death. In the said process, the accused also used an axe and inflicted injuries upon the complainant. After completion of the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against five accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that the serious allegation is made only against accused No.1, who incidentally is now dead. Accused Nos.3 to 5 have already been enlarged on bail. The complaint does not make any allegation against the present petitioner, however, based on alleged further statement of the complainant, the police have roped the present petitioner also only to harass him. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader who has filed statement of objection to the petition though stated that no allegation was made against the present petitioner in the complaint, but, has submitted that further statement given by the complainant, who is none else than the injured witness, makes it very clear that the present petitioner also had involved in the commission of crime. As such, the petitioner does not deserve the relief which he has prayed. 5. On perusal of the material placed before this Court at this stage would go to show that the alleged victim himself is the complainant in this case. In his complaint dated 20.02.2019, he shown to have stated that it was only accused No.1 Kumar who is said to be the owner of the adjoining land of the complainant is said to have attacked and assaulted the complainant and inflicted injuries upon him by using an axe. In his complaint dated 20.02.2019, he shown to have stated that it was only accused No.1 Kumar who is said to be the owner of the adjoining land of the complainant is said to have attacked and assaulted the complainant and inflicted injuries upon him by using an axe. In the complaint, it is further stated that accused No.1 inflicted injuries on the backside of the head of the complainant, causing bleeding injuries and thereafter with the handle of the very same axe, he also assaulted on the left knee of the complainant by causing heart to him. The complainant appears to have further stated in the complaint that it was at that time, the complainants brother Anand, wife of the complainant Sharadabai, son-in-law Tulajaram and his uncle Chandu (present petitioner) all rescued him and shifted him on a motorcycle to their Tanda and thereafter he was taken to the hospital. Thus, at the fist instance in the complaint the present petitioners role is described as savior rather than attacker. However, alleged further statement of the complainant would go to show that the present petitioner/accused No.2 was also one among the alleged assailants and the present petitioner caused heart by assaulting the complainant with the handle of an axe on the left knee of the complainant. Thus, the said variation in the original complaint and the further statement given by the complainant probably would be one of the fact which the trial Court requires to be considered during the trial. Admittedly, the investigation in this case has already been completed and even according to the prosecution, the apprehension of the present petitioner is not required for any recovery. However, further apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may flee from justice in case of his enlargement on bail can be checked by imposing reasonable conditions. 6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. In the event the petitioner is arrested by the respondent-Gogi Police Station, the petitioner namely, Chandu S/o Kesunaik Chavan, in Crime No.18/2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, he shall be enlarged on the relief of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions that: i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority/Court. ii) Petitioner shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the case is pending, within ten days from today. iii) Petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing. iv) The accused/petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. v) The accused/petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard.